Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-21-2004 HEARING EXAMINER MINUTES JANUARY 21, 2004 The meeting of the Auburn Hearing Examiner was held on January 21, 2004 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Auburn City Hall. Those in attendance were as follows: HEARING EXAMINER: Diane L. VanDerbeek STAFF: David Osaki, Mitzi McMahan, Shirley Aird and Patti Zook Ms. VanDerbeek called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. explaining the order of procedures and swore in staff and those in the audience intending on testifying. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. APPLICATION NO. VAR03-0015 The request of Frary Breckenridge for a variance to allow a six foot fence in the required yard setback. The project is located at 2610 Hemlock Street SE. Hearing Examiner opened the public hearing. Planner McMahan presented the staff report. The applicant wants to replace an existing 72 inches tall fence with a new fence and relocate it approximately three feet to the north to coincide with the existing north property line. Staff recommends approval of the variance. Hearing Examiner inquired about Finding of Fact 4 on page 4, about applicant wishing to replace existing fence and to relocate the fence slightly. Planner McMahan clarified that Mrs. Breckenridge wants to relocate the fence approximately three feet north of the old fence line. Hearing Examiner mentioned that the photographs provided by Mrs. Breckenridge are unclear. Planner McMahan said one photo shows the unimproved City lot. The bottom photo shows the existing fence. Mrs. Breckenridge has read the staff report and thought there might be a misunderstanding. She plans to bring the fence to meet the property line; fence was within property line before. One photo shows property to the north of her and photo shows what she views [trucks]. She doesn't want to look at other fence. She is trying to rebuild the fence on the property line. Judi Rees, 113 16th Street SE, said her parents live next to Mrs. Breckenridge and showed a photograph. She asked if Mrs. Breckenridge is replacing the entire fence because she is unsure what is being replaced. Hearing Examiner asked about the paint on the fence. Ms. Rees said her parents don't object to the fence being replaced. Hearing Examiner noted that,in addition to the testimony of Ms. Rees, City received written comment from Elmer Kerns which is marked as Exhibit 2 to the hearing. Exhibit 1 is the case file. Mrs. Breckenridge showed a report from the Police Department. She is located at the end of the street and the area has become a dumping ground. The report is from November and concerns a stolen van that was abandoned in her driveway. Her home is being rebuilt after a fire. She was advised to enlarge the words 'danger' and 'no trespassing' signs on the fence. She has trespassers from apartments to the west and trespassers from the north; trespass problem; Her property overlooks the White River and people try to access the river through her property. Hearing Examiner expressed concern about the applicant redoing the fence and then spray painting on the fence again the words 'danger' and 'no trespassing'. She is uninclined to increase the fence height 30 inches in order to spray paint signs on the fence. Mrs. Breckenridge spoke about repairing the fence and that she was told to put signs on the fence to mark danger. He will consider the police report. Community Development Administrator Osaki remarked that the City doesn't regulate aesthetics of fences and that decorations on fence isn't regulated in the Code. Hearing Examiner wondered about a PAGE 1 HEARING EXAMINER MINUTES JANUARY 21, 2004 condition that speaks to fence being aesthetically pleasing and concurred that it is hard to regulate taste. The fence is not attractive with spray painted four feet high words of 'danger' and 'no trespassing'. Community Development Administrator Osaki said that City doesn't regulate fence aesthetics and mentioned free speech issue. He offered to consult with the City Attorney. Hearing Examiner asked Mrs. Breckenridge if she objects to a condition if the variance is granted that she not paint words on the fence. Mrs. Breckenridge said the painting on the fence has been there since the police report. The fence has been in place since 1965. Hearing Examiner asked how many times since 1965 has she had problems and Mrs. Breckenridge said her house is unoccupied and is being remodeled. Incidents multiply because no one lives there. Hearing Examiner mentioned her intent is to approve the variance to allow the fence to be 30 inches higher than the Code allows, with possible condition that fence not be spray painted with words. Would Mrs. Breckenridge object to the condition and Mrs. Breckenridge said no. Hearing Examiner will leave the record open for 1 week and asked Community Development Administrator Osaki to consult with the City Attorney see if he could approve language related to aesthetics of the fence. If City Attorney does not feel that under the Code a condition is supportable, let Hearing Examiner know. If Community Development Administrator Osaki can come up with a condition that Mrs. Breckenridge agrees to fine. Hearing Examiner to Mrs. Breckenridge, check with City Attorney to see if under Code a condition can be imposed that if the variance is granted and fence is 30 inches higher than Code permits, there is a way to regulate aesthetics of the fence. If City Attorney say can't regulate under the Code, Community Development Administrator Osaki could propose a condition regarding regulating the aesthetics of the fence. If Mrs. Breckenridge doesn't agree to condition then notify Hearing Examiner by January 30. Mrs. Breckenridge said that she needs to post danger signs because of holes on the property. Attorneys told her she would be liable if someone is injured on her property. Hearing Examiner said that she could post danger signs versus spray painting the word danger in four foot high letters on the fence. Hearing Examiner left the record open. Hearing Examiner joined the below two cases. 2. APPLICATION NO. VAR03-0014 The request of Howard J. McOmber, Sr./Skyline Properties, Inc., for a variance to allow for existing substandard setbacks. The project is located at 111 - 4th Street NE. 3. APPLICATION NO. CUP03-0009 The request of Howard J. McOmber, Sr./Skyline Properties, Inc., for conditional use permit for an existing dwelling that was developed as a 'group residence facility' to be converted into 12 dwelling units. The project is located at 111 - 4th Street NE. Hearing Examiner opened the public hearing. Planner Aird remarked that the property is the former Century House group home, had a common dining hall, no kitchens in the units, proposal is a reuse property in tradition of multi-family housing. She mentioned the previous variance and conditional use permit applications that received Hearing Examiner decisions, but never went to City Council and were later withdrawn. This project is essentially the same as the previous project. She reviewed the condition related to lot line adjustment. She spoke about the 50% rule which triggers the variance. She reviewed the CUP conditions. Mr. McOmber has had discussions with staff. David Neveu, 1117 3rd Street NE, met the applicant before the meeting and asked him what he plans for Century House and applicant said for low income families. He took the citizens academy with the Police PAGE 2 HEARING EXAMINER MINUTES JANUARY 21, 2004 Department a few years ago and noticed the low income housing on M Street has two calls every hour. He is concerned about the number of police calls at low income housing. Hearing Examiner commented that having the buildings renovated and occupied may enhance neighborhood security. She noted Mr. Neveu's concerns related to neighborhood security. Fred Clyde, 431 K Street NE, said that when the buildings were occupied previously the Fire Department had to come several times because of fire alarms. Fire Department has used the buildings for training purposes. He asked about the fire system. Parking area has a small area for cars. Site has only one entrance to get out onto 4th Street and there is much traffic on K Street during summer ball games. He spoke about more parking in the play area and that it would be nice to have more property on the fence line and that the fence needs to be fixed. Planner Aird had one additional comment that during lot line adjustment discussions, issue is that buildings span property line. Regarding fire sprinklers, project engineer came in for a preapplication meeting and met with the Fire Marshall and discussed this. Fire wall restrictions were mentioned. Regarding egress of the parking lot, there are not a lot of options for requiring the applicant to change or move Hearing Examiner closed the public hearing and will issue the written decision within 10 days. ADJOURNMENT: With no further items to come before the Hearing Examiner, the meeting was adjourned at 8:00 p.m. HEIAGND\MIN01-2004 PAGE 3